The review of new evidence 5 years later: SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) |
| |
| Institution: | 1. MANILA Consulting Group, Inc., 6707 Old Dominion Drive, McLean, VA 22101, United States;2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857, United States;1. Department of Psychology, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, United States;2. Department of Health Education & Behavior, The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States;1. Division of Trauma, Department of Surgery, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA;2. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA;3. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA;4. Trauma Program, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA;5. Trauma Program, Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA;6. Department of Surgery, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA;1. General Hospital of Athens “Ippokratio”, Vassilissis Sofias 114, 11527 Athens, Greece;2. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece;1. Division of Cardiology, Ospedale Manzoni, Lecco, Italy;2. Clinical Pharmacology, Milan, Italy;3. Division of Cardiology, Ospedale Infermi, Rimini, Italy;4. Division of Cardiology, Ospedale della Misericordia, Grosseto, Italy;5. Cardiologia Prima, Emodinamica, Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy;6. Division of Cardiology, IRCCS Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy;7. Cardiovascular Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy;8. Division of Cardiology, Ospedale Mauriziano, Torino, Italy;9. Cardiovascular Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy;10. Division of Cardiology, Ospedale Belcolle, Viterbo, and Centro per la Lotta Contro L''Infarto - CLI Foundation, Rome, Italy;11. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Pediatricss, Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Modena, Italy;12. Department of Medico Surgical Sciences and Biotechnology, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy;13. Division of Cardiology, Ospedale San Giovanni Addolorata, and Centro per la Lotta contro l'' Infarto - CLI Foundation, Roma, Italy;1. Sainte-Anne hospital, CMME, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France;2. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U894, Paris, France;3. McGill University, Department of Psychiatry & Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill Group for Suicide Studies, Douglas Institute, Frank B. Common Pavilion, 6875 LaSalle Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4H 1R3;4. Laboratoire de Psychologie des Pays de la Loire EA 4638, Université de Nantes et Angers, France;5. Département de Santé Mentale et de Psychiatrie, Service de Psychiatrie Générale, Centre Ambulatoire de la Jonction, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland;6. Service Hospitalo - Universitaire (SHU), Sainte-Anne Hospital, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France |
| |
| Abstract: | The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) decided that NREPP should offer a second review option for interventions that have already been reviewed and included in the registry for 5 years. Principals from 135 such interventions were invited to participate in a second review, and an exploratory study of the Principals’ responses to this invitation was conducted. The study used a mixed-method approach, quantitatively describing characteristics of Principals and their interventions and qualitatively summarizing feedback from phone interviews with a convenience sample of Principals participating in a second review. Of the Principals invited, 21% accepted a second review, 24% were interested but unable or not ready to submit materials, and 56% did not accept or did not respond. Mental health treatment interventions were more likely to undergo a second review, and substance abuse treatment interventions were less likely. Similar percentages of interventions undergoing a second review had received funding from the National Institutes of Health (86%) and had been evaluated in a comparative effectiveness research study (79%). Overall ratings for interventions improved in each second review completed. The interviewed Principals perceived potentially lower ratings as the only risk in participating in a second review. |
| |
| Keywords: | Review Evidence based Program evaluation Quality of research Readiness for dissemination Substance abuse Mental health |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
